Shane Watson

[Catman]

He seems to have been given a lot of time to claim the all-rounder spot in the One Day side but has done very little with bat or ball.

Ian Harvey and Andrew Symonds were given hardly any time to claim the position due to the stupid rotation policy used in the last summer.

What do people think, is he the one or should they forget the position all together?

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Catman

Ian Harvey and Andrew Symonds were given hardly any time to claim the position due to the stupid rotation policy used in the last summer.

They were both given more time than they deserved. I hope Watson proves a success.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Catman
He seems to have been given a lot of time to claim the all-rounder spot in the One Day side but has done very little with bat or ball.

Ian Harvey and Andrew Symonds were given hardly any time to claim the position due to the stupid rotation policy used in the last summer.

What do people think, is he the one or should they forget the position all together?

I'd venture for the option of not having an allrounder at all and just relying on the likes of Martyn, Ponting, Bevan and Lehmann to be the 5th bowler.

That's a risky option (and it came unstuck in early matches of the 1999 World Cup) but I don't think there's an allrounder who warrants a spot in the team.

Ian Harvey is vastly overrated - pure and simple. He's had a stack of chances to prove himself at international level over the last 5 years and never taken them.

I thought Andrew Symonds would step up last season but he was a big disappointment with the bat in the one-dayers. As Richie Benaud succintly put it on Saturday, he simply hits too many balls in the air early in his innings. And his soft dismissal against Sri Lanka when all the conditions were in his favour have virtually killed any chance of him going to the World Cup.

Shane Watson I haven't seen much of at international level so I can't really comment but it would be a big ask for someone as young as him to be a match-winning allrounder in the world's biggest one-day tournament. But I can understand why the selectors have gone with him.

 

[hourn]

Watson i think will eventually become a success, however at the moment is a bit young to know what to do.

As i've already mentioned he seems to have trouble scoring when he is under pressure to score the runs quickly.

His bowling is ok at times, but doesn't pick up many wickets. Is better at the long form of the game.

 

[Foxtrot]

Re: Re: Shane Watson

Originally posted by wagstaff
I'd venture for the option of not having an allrounder at all and just relying on the likes of Martyn, Ponting, Bevan and Lehmann to be the 5th bowler.

I favour this option as well - and adding another fast scoring batsman who can bowl a bit (Clarke / Blewett) or alternatively another bowler who can bat ok (like Bichel). I don't agree with this obsession that we must have a recognised all rounder in the side for balance.

Watson is ok - his batting seems to be his strength but it's not like he will be depended on to win games. His bowling seems a bit suspect and I can't imagine him being that much better an option than 10 overs cobbled togther by Lehman, Martyn, Bevan etc. Either alternative can get belted or be ok.

If in the next world cup we are relying on Watson (or Andy Symonds for that matter) to win games with the bat or ball we will be in trouble. An extra player who is a specialist in his main area with a bit of a clue in the other is what we need imho.

 

[vergs]

I reckon we should try Blewett as the all rounder, if only for this series, just to see how he goes.

 

[lamby29]

The main reason he is still in the side is because there aren't any other quality all-rounders in Australia.

Harvey's batting isn't up to it.

Symonds bowling isn't up to it.


I think they should just stick with Watson. He has already hit a 77* and has been handy with the ball. His average of 33 isn't bad either.

 

[BW]

I think they should just stick with Watson. He has already hit a 77* and has been handy with the ball. His average of 33 isn't bad either.

My thoughts exactly. He doesnt even warrant being dropped at the moment. I thought he bowled very well last night. And in the first match was hit for 12 off his first over, then 13 off the next two, and never came back on. I thought it was a bit harsh by Ponting to give Martyn a bowl instead of him later on. Would of dinted his confidence a bit. He was impressive in South Africa, scored that 77* (could of been a 50 odd not entirely sure) in a game where we were beaten, so the theory he doesnt score under pressure goes out the window a bit, in at least 1 game anyway.

Would prefer we go with a specialist rather than Blewett, wouldnt do much better with the bat than Watson IMO if he was used at 7.

Its interesting to note that the selectors seem to prefer an all-rounder who can bat and bowl as well as eachother but not to an overly high standard, rather than a guy that obviously has a strength in one aspect. Watson seems to be even with bat and ball, while Harvey, and to a lesser extent Symonds, have an obvious strength in bowling over batting (although if Symonds had his head on straight his batting would surpass his bowling easily)

 

[GoEagles]

Symonds and Harvey had their chance to make that all-rounders spot and they failed. Watson has youth to his advantage - Symonds and Harvey were already experienced at domestic and English County level.